Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 659 (CAL)

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India

2017-08-03

MIR DARA SHEKO, RAKESH TIWARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2017 passed in W.P. No. 16018(W) of 2016 with CAN 9711 of 2016 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge misconstrued the provision of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directing the appellant to pay the wages last drawn by the respondent No. 4, as provided under the aforesaid section 17B of the Act. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, respondent No. 4 was not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid provisions of law as his employment was wholly casual and temporary in nature. He was appointed on 1st June, 1990 for a period of 89 days only in Belakothar Prospecting Camp, Bilaspur (M.P.), a project of which was closed in the month of July, 1991. 4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the alleged appointment letter of the workman wherein Raw Materials Division, Kolkata has not been mentioned, was not issued by the Appointing Authority at Kolkata, but by the Junior Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh for engagement on a project for specified period of 89 days. It is further argued that neither the service of the respondent No. 4 was terminated by the employer, who had engaged him at Camp project in Madhya Pradesh, nor he was entitled to the benefit of section 25F of the Act. As the provisions would not apply to a workman engaged for a specified period of time, the Writ Court has committed an error in law as apparent on the face of the record allowing the employee to get the benefit of the provisions of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 admittedly on closure of the project. 5. The submission is that the provisions of section 17B of the Act would be applicable presumably where an award has been given by the Court of competent jurisdiction and the service of the employee has been terminated by the employer, from a permanent sanctioned post, who has appointed him. 5. The submission is that the provisions of section 17B of the Act would be applicable presumably where an award has been given by the Court of competent jurisdiction and the service of the employee has been terminated by the employer, from a permanent sanctioned post, who has appointed him. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all for the reference to be made at the instance of the workman treating him to be an employee of works at Kolkata, who had received an information about his termination issued from an office at Kolkata. It could not be construed as a letter of termination issued by the authority who had initially engaged him as a casual worker for a duration of 89 days, extended him from time to time till closure for working as casual khalasi in the prospecting camp project. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent/workman submits that the provisions of section 17B would clearly be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the reference is not bad in law having been made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Kolkata, as Bokaro Steel Plant is not situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records as well as paragraphs 4, 13 and 17 of the award, we find that the concerned workman was appointed by M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant as a casual 'Khalasi', Grade-II in a project on 2nd June, 1990. He was deployed to work at Jairamnagar in Belakothar Prospecting Camp, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that his appointment was issued by the competent authority not at Madhya Pradesh appears to be incorrect. In any case, Bokaro Steel Plant City does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal. 8. Thus there is a clear distinction between the provisions of section 25F and 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. The whole of the award being without jurisdiction and based upon incorrect applicability of relevant provisions could also not have turned the casual engagement of the workman into a permanent one by directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages. Such direction does not appear to be correct for applying the provisions of section 17B of the Act. 9. The whole of the award being without jurisdiction and based upon incorrect applicability of relevant provisions could also not have turned the casual engagement of the workman into a permanent one by directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages. Such direction does not appear to be correct for applying the provisions of section 17B of the Act. 9. Prima facie we find that the reference regarding termination of service of the workman concerned made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata appears to be bad in law and it had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case, particularly in view of the aforesaid findings in paragraphs 4, 13 and 17 of the award. Moreover, provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertain to retrenchment which are mandatory in nature but admitted the engagement of the workman which was for a prospecting camp on casual basis came to an end and on closure of the camp as prospecting for minerals was a failure. Hence provisions of section 25FFF would apply where payment of wages for the noted period have not been made condition precedent to retrenchment on closure and the Industrial Tribunal has no power to enquire into closure. 10. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 17th April, 2017 is stayed until further order unless vacated or modified earlier. 11. As prayed for by learned Counsel for the respondent, the matter be listed for final hearing on 23rd August, 2017. The application, being CAN 4899 of 2017, is accordingly disposed of.